DOCSLIB.ORG

Page 9 TITLE 47—TELECOMMUNICATIONS §§ 120

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Page 9 TITLE 47—TELECOMMUNICATIONS §§ 120 Page 9 TITLE 47—TELECOMMUNICATIONS Section 115, act Feb. 23, 1927, ch. 169, § 35, 44 Stat. 1174, Sec. related to application of section 81 et seq. of this title 216. Receivers and trustees; application of chap- to Philippine Islands and Canal Zone. ter. Section 116, act Feb. 23, 1927, ch. 169, § 36, 44 Stat. 1174, 217. Agents’ acts and omissions; liability of car- related to administration of radio laws in Territories rier. and insular possessions. See section 329 of this title. 218. Management of business; inquiries by Com- Section 117, act Feb. 23, 1927, ch. 169, § 38, 44 Stat. 1174, mission. related to invalidity of part of chapter and effect as to 219. Reports by carriers; contents and require- remainder. See section 608 of this title. ments generally. Section 118, act Feb. 23, 1927, ch. 169, § 39, 44 Stat. 1174, 220. Accounts, records, and memoranda. related to repeal of sections 51–63 and effect of repeal 221. Consolidations and mergers of telephone com- on existing rights. panies. Section 119, act Feb. 23, 1927, ch. 169, § 41, 44 Stat. 1174, 222. Privacy of customer information. related to citation of section 81 et seq. of this title as 223. Obscene or harassing telephone calls in the ‘‘Radio Act of 1927.’’ District of Columbia or in interstate or for- eign communications. §§ 120, 121. Omitted 224. Pole attachments. 225. Telecommunications services for hearing-im- CODIFICATION paired and speech-impaired individuals. Section 120, act July 5, 1932, ch. 421, § 1, 47 Stat. 576, 226. Telephone operator services. related to equipment necessary on ocean-going vessels 227. Restrictions on use of telephone equipment. using ports in the Canal Zone. 227a. Consumer education materials on how to Section 121, act July 5, 1932, ch. 421, § 2, 47 Stat. 576, avoid scams that rely upon misleading or related to jurisdiction of violations and penalties for inaccurate caller identification informa- ocean-going vessels not properly equipped. tion. 228. Regulation of carrier offering of pay-per-call CHAPTER 5—WIRE OR RADIO services. COMMUNICATION 229. Communications Assistance for Law Enforce- ment Act compliance. SUBCHAPTER I—GENERAL PROVISIONS 230. Protection for private blocking and screening Sec. of offensive material. 151. Purposes of chapter; Federal Communications 231. Restriction of access by minors to materials Commission created. commercially distributed by means of 152. Application of chapter. World Wide Web that are harmful to mi- 153. Definitions. nors. 154. Federal Communications Commission. PART II—DEVELOPMENT OF COMPETITIVE MARKETS 155. Commission. 155a. Authority of Chief Information Officer. 251. Interconnection. 156. Authorization of appropriations. 252. Procedures for negotiation, arbitration, and 157. New technologies and services. approval of agreements. 158. Application fees. 253. Removal of barriers to entry. 159. Regulatory fees. 254. Universal service. 159a. Provisions applicable to application and regu- 255. Access by persons with disabilities. latory fees. 256. Coordination for interconnectivity. 160. Competition in provision of telecommunica- 257. Market entry barriers proceeding. tions service. 258. Illegal changes in subscriber carrier selec- 161. Regulatory reform. tions. 162. Additional research authorities of the FCC. 259. Infrastructure sharing. 163. Communications marketplace report. 260. Provision of telemessaging service. SUBCHAPTER II—COMMON CARRIERS 261. Effect on other requirements. 262. Ensuring the integrity of voice communica- PART I—COMMON CARRIER REGULATION tions. 201. Service and charges. PART III—SPECIAL PROVISIONS CONCERNING BELL 202. Discriminations and preferences. OPERATING COMPANIES 203. Schedules of charges. 204. Hearings on new charges; suspension pending 271. Bell operating company entry into hearing; refunds; duration of hearing; ap- interLATA services. peal of order concluding hearing. 272. Separate affiliate; safeguards. 205. Commission authorized to prescribe just and 273. Manufacturing by Bell operating companies. reasonable charges; penalties for violations. 274. Electronic publishing by Bell operating com- 206. Carriers’ liability for damages. panies. 207. Recovery of damages. 275. Alarm monitoring services. 208. Complaints to Commission; investigations; 276. Provision of payphone service. duration of investigation; appeal of order SUBCHAPTER III—SPECIAL PROVISIONS concluding investigation. RELATING TO RADIO 209. Orders for payment of money. PART I—GENERAL PROVISIONS 210. Franks and passes; free service to govern- mental agencies in connection with na- 301. License for radio communication or trans- tional defense. mission of energy. 211. Contracts of carriers; filing with Commission. 302. Repealed. 212. Interlocking directorates; officials dealing in 302a. Devices which interfere with radio reception. securities. 303. Powers and duties of Commission. 213. Valuation of property of carrier. 303a. Standards for children’s television program- 214. Extension of lines or discontinuance of serv- ming. ice; certificate of public convenience and 303b. Consideration of children’s television service necessity. in broadcast license renewal. 215. Examination of transactions relating to fur- 303c. Television program improvement. nishing of services, equipment, etc.; reports 304. Waiver by license of claims to particular fre- to Congress. quency or of electromagnetic spectrum. TITLE 47—TELECOMMUNICATIONS Page 10 Sec. Sec. 305. Government owned stations. 356. Approval of installations by Commission. 306. Foreign ships; application of section 301. 357. Safety information. 307. Licenses. 358. Master’s control over operations. 308. Requirements for license. 359. Certificates of compliance; issuance, modi- 309. Application for license. fication, and cancellation. 309a. Reports related to spectrum auctions. 360. Station licenses; inspection of equipment by 310. License ownership restrictions. Commission. 311. Requirements as to certain applications in 361. Control by Commission; review of decisions. broadcasting service. 362. Forfeitures; recovery. 312. Administrative sanctions. 363. Automated ship distress and safety systems. 312a. Revocation of operator’s license used in un- lawful distribution of controlled sub- PART III—RADIO INSTALLATIONS ON VESSELS CARRYING stances. PASSENGERS FOR HIRE 313. Application of antitrust laws to manufacture, 381. Vessels transporting more than six pas- sale, and trade in radio apparatus. sengers for hire required to be equipped 314. Competition in commerce; preservation. with radiotelephone. 315. Candidates for public office. 382. Vessels excepted from radiotelephone require- 316. Modification by Commission of station li- ment. censes or construction permits; burden of 383. Exemptions by Commission. proof. 384. Authority of Commission; operations, instal- 317. Announcement of payment for broadcast. lations, and additional equipment. 318. Transmitting apparatus; operator’s license. 385. Inspections. 319. Construction permits. 386. Forfeitures. 320. Stations liable to interfere with distress sig- nals; designation and regulation. PART IV—ASSISTANCE FOR PLANNING AND CONSTRUC- 321. Distress signals and communications; equip- TION OF PUBLIC TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES; ment on vessels; regulations. TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEMONSTRATIONS; CORPORATION 322. Exchanging radio communications between FOR PUBLIC BROADCASTING; GENERAL PROVISIONS land and ship stations and from ship to ship. SUBPART A—ASSISTANCE FOR PLANNING AND CONSTRUC- 323. Interference between Government and com- TION OF PUBLIC TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES mercial stations. 390. Declaration of purpose. 324. Use of minimum power. 391. Authorization of appropriations. 325. False, fraudulent, or unauthorized trans- 392. Grants for construction. missions. 392a. Repealed. 326. Censorship. 393. Criteria for approval and expenditures by 327. Naval stations; use for commercial messages; Secretary. rates. 393a. Long-range planning for facilities. 328. Repealed. 329. Administration of radio laws in Territories SUBPART B—NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR CHILDREN’S and possessions. EDUCATIONAL TELEVISION 330. Prohibition against shipment of certain tele- 394. Establishment of National Endowment. vision receivers. 331. Very high frequency stations and AM radio SUBPART C—TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEMONSTRATIONS stations. 332. Mobile services. 395. Assistance for demonstration projects. 333. Willful or malicious interference. SUBPART D—CORPORATION FOR PUBLIC BROADCASTING 334. Limitation on revision of equal employment opportunity regulations. 396. Corporation for Public Broadcasting. 335. Direct broadcast satellite service obligations. SUBPART E—GENERAL PROVISIONS 336. Broadcast spectrum flexibility. 337. Allocation and assignment of new public safe- 397. Definitions. ty services licenses and commercial li- 398. Federal interference or control. censes. 399. Support of political candidates prohibited. 338. Carriage of local television signals by sat- 399a. Use of business or institutional logograms. ellite carriers. 399b. Offering of certain services, facilities, or 339. Carriage of distant television stations by sat- products by public broadcast station. ellite carriers. SUBCHAPTER IV—PROCEDURAL AND 340. Significantly viewed signals permitted to be ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS carried. 341. Carriage of television signals to certain sub- 401. Enforcement provisions. scribers. 402. Judicial review of Commission’s orders and 342. Process for issuing qualified carrier certifi- decisions. cation. 403. Inquiry by Commission on its own motion. 343.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Rethinking the Role of History in Law & Economics: the Case of The
    09-008 Rethinking the Role of History in Law & Economics: The Case of the Federal Radio Commission in 1927 David A. Moss Jonathan B. Lackow Copyright © 2008 by David A. Moss and Jonathan B. Lackow Working papers are in draft form. This working paper is distributed for purposes of comment and discussion only. It may not be reproduced without permission of the copyright holder. Copies of working papers are available from the author. Rethinking the Role of History in Law & Economics: The Case of the Federal Radio Commission in 1927 David A. Moss Jonathan B. Lackow July 13, 2008 Abstract In the study of law and economics, there is a danger that historical inferences from theory may infect historical tests of theory. It is imperative, therefore, that historical tests always involve a vigorous search not only for confirming evidence, but for disconfirming evidence as well. We undertake such a search in the context of a single well-known case: the Federal Radio Commission’s (FRC’s) 1927 decision not to expand the broadcast radio band. The standard account of this decision holds that incumbent broadcasters opposed expansion (to avoid increased competition) and succeeded in capturing the FRC. Although successful broadcaster opposition may be taken as confirming evidence for this interpretation, our review of the record reveals even stronger disconfirming evidence. In particular, we find that every major interest group, not just radio broadcasters, publicly opposed expansion of the band in 1927, and that broadcasters themselves were divided at the FRC’s hearings. 1. Introduction What is the role of history in the study of law and economics? Perhaps its most important role in this context is as a test of theory and a source of new hypotheses.
    [Show full text]
  • Sarah Clemens* Journalists Face a Credibility Crisis, Plagued by Chants
    FROM FAIRNESS TO FAKE NEWS: HOW REGULATIONS CAN RESTORE PUBLIC TRUST IN THE MEDIA Sarah Clemens* Journalists face a credibility crisis, plagued by chants of fake news and a crowded rat race in the primetime ratings. Critics of the media look at journalists as the problem. Within this domain, legal scholarship has generated a plethora of pieces critiquing media credibility with less attention devoted to how and why public trust of the media has eroded. This Note offers a novel explanation and defense. To do so, it asserts the proposition that deregulating the media contributed to the proliferation of fake news and led to a decline in public trust of the media. To support this claim, this Note first briefly examines the historical underpinnings of the regulations that once made television broadcasters “public trustees” of the news. This Note also touches on the historical role of the Public Broadcasting Act that will serve as the legislative mechanism under which media regulations can be amended. Delving into what transpired as a result of deregulation and prodding the effects of limiting oversight over broadcast, this Note analyzes the current public perception of broadcast news, putting forth the hypothesis that deregulation is correlated to a negative public perception of broadcast news. This Note analyzes the effect of deregulation by exploring recent examples of what has emerged as a result of deregulation, including some of the most significant examples of misinformation in recent years. In so doing, it discusses reporting errors that occurred ahead of the Iraq War, analyzes how conspiracy theories spread in mainstream broadcast, and discusses the effect of partisan reporting on public perception of the media.
    [Show full text]
  • Making Radio Pirates Walk the Plank with Aiding and Abetting Liability
    Arrr! Sever Thee Transmitters! Making Radio Pirates Walk the Plank with Aiding and Abetting Liability Max Nacheman * TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................... 299 II. THE INTERTWINED FATE OF BROADCAST REGULATION AND PIRATE RADIO ............................................................................................. 301 A. Origins of Radio Broadcast Regulation in the United States .. 301 B. Pirates of the (Air)waves: The Swell of Unauthorized Broadcasting ............................................................................ 303 C. From Radio Pirates to Cellular Ninjas: The Future of Unauthorized Broadcasting ..................................................... 304 III. UNAUTHORIZED BROADCASTING POSES A UNIQUE ENFORCEMENT CHALLENGE THAT MAY BE ADDRESSED BY ESTABLISHING AUTHORITY TO CRACK DOWN ON AIDERS AND ABETTORS OF PIRATE BROADCASTERS .............................................................................. 305 A. The FCC’s Enforcement Procedure for Unauthorized Broadcasters Is an Inadequate Deterrent to Pirates ............... 306 B. Aiding and Abetting Liability Would Cut the Supply Chain of Essential Resources to Unauthorized Broadcasters ................ 309 1. How the United Kingdom Sank Pirate Radio ................... 310 2. Aiding and Abetting Liability for Securities Violations ... 311 IV. THREE WAYS TO CRACK DOWN ON AIDERS AND ABETTORS OF UNAUTHORIZED BROADCASTING: STATUTE, RULEMAKING, AND EXISTING CRIMINAL LAW .............................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Lessons from FCC Regulation of Radio Broadcasting Thomas W
    Michigan Technology Law Review Volume 4 | Issue 1 1998 "Chilling" the Internet? Lessons from FCC Regulation of Radio Broadcasting Thomas W. Hazlett University of California, Davis David W. Sosa University of California, Davis Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mttlr Part of the Communications Law Commons, First Amendment Commons, Internet Law Commons, and the Legislation Commons Recommended Citation Thomas W. Hazlett & aD vid W. Sosa, "Chilling" the Internet? Lessons from FCC Regulation of Radio Broadcasting , 4 Mich. Telecomm. & Tech. L. Rev. 35 (1998). Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mttlr/vol4/iss1/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Michigan Technology Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. "CHILLING" THE INTERNET? LESSONS FROM FCC REGULATION OF RADIO BROADCASTING Thomas W. Hazlett and David W. Sosa* Cite As: Thomas W. Hazlett and David W. Sosa, "Chilling" the Internet? Lessonsfrom FCCRegulation of Radio Broadcasting, 4 MICH. TELECOmm. TECH. L. REv. 35 (1998) available at <http:/www.mttlr.org/volfour/hazlett.pdf>. ExEcuTIvE SUMMARY ...................................................................... 35 I. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................... 36 II. CONTENT REGULATION IN BROADCASTING ............................... 41 Im. CONTENT REGULATION PRE-"FAIRNEsS" ........................44 IV. RED LION: THE REST OF THE STORY ........................................ 45 V. NIXON'S "CHILL" .................................................................... 47 VI. EXTENDING THE "CHILL" BEYOND WASHINGTON POLITICS ......... 50 VII. THE FCC LIFTS RADIO REGULATION, 1979-87 ........................ 51 VIII. DID THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE "WARM" OR "CHILI'? ............
    [Show full text]
  • GAO-02-906 Telecommunications
    United States General Accounting Office GAO Report to Congressional Requesters September 2002 TELECOMMUNICATIONS Better Coordination and Enhanced Accountability Needed to Improve Spectrum Management a GAO-02-906 Contents Letter 1 Results in Brief 2 Background 5 Concern Over Concentrating Authority Led to Divided Structure for Spectrum Management 6 Methods for Allocating Spectrum Face Difficulties and Are Not Guided by a Coordinated National Plan 11 Issues Have Emerged Regarding the Adequacy of U.S. Preparations for World Radiocommunication Conferences 19 Federal Officials Said Activities to Encourage Efficient Federal Spectrum Use Are Hindered by Staffing and Resource Problems 25 Conclusions 34 Recommendations for Executive Action 35 Agency Comments 36 Appendixes Appendix I: Major Parts of the Radiofrequency Spectrum and Their Uses 38 Appendix II: Timeline of Spectrum Management 40 Appendix III: Comments from the Federal Communications Commission 67 Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Commerce 69 Appendix V: Comments from the Department of State 71 Figures Figure 1: Interdepartment Radio Advisory Committee’s Membership 10 Figure 2: Percent of Spectrum Shared by Federal and Nonfederal Users (9 kHz to 3.1 GHz) 12 Figure 3: Spectrum Reallocation Process 13 Figure 4: Relationship of U.S. Participants in Preparing for World Radiocommunication Conferences 21 Figure 5: NTIA Frequency Assignment Process 26 Figure 6: Timeline of Spectrum Management (1895–1925) 41 Figure 7: Timeline of Spectrum Management (1925–1955) 47 Figure 8: Timeline
    [Show full text]
  • The Federal Communications Commission: Current Structure and Its Role in the Changing Telecommunications Landscape
    The Federal Communications Commission: Current Structure and Its Role in the Changing Telecommunications Landscape Patricia Moloney Figliola Specialist in Internet and Telecommunications Policy August 1, 2018 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov RL32589 The Federal Communications Commission Summary The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is an independent federal agency with its five members appointed by the President, subject to confirmation by the Senate. It was established by the Communications Act of 1934 (1934 Act) and is charged with regulating interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite, and cable. The mission of the FCC is to ensure that the American people have available—at reasonable cost and without discrimination—rapid, efficient, nation- and worldwide communication services, whether by radio, television, wire, satellite, or cable. Although the FCC has restructured over the past few years to better reflect the industry, it is still required to adhere to the statutory requirements of its governing legislation, the Communications Act of 1934. The 1934 Act requires the FCC to regulate the various industry sectors differently. Some policymakers have been critical of the FCC and the manner in which it regulates various sectors of the telecommunications industry—telephone, cable television, radio and television broadcasting, and some aspects of the internet. These policymakers, including some in Congress, have long called for varying degrees and types of reform to the FCC. Most proposals fall into two categories: (1) procedural changes made within the FCC or through congressional action that would affect the agency’s operations or (2) substantive policy changes requiring congressional action that would affect how the agency regulates different services and industry sectors.
    [Show full text]
  • DOC-308650A1.Pdf
    First Annual Report of the Federal Communications Commission To the Congress of the United States For the Fiscal Year 1935 Herbert L. Pettey, Secretary UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON: 1936 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, Washington, D. C. • Price 15 Cents FIRST ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, Washington, D.O., January 6, 1936. To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of Amerioa in Oongress assembled: Herewith is submitted the First Annual Report of the Federal Communications Commission covering the fiscal year ended June 30,1935. The Federal Communications Commission was established by an act entitled" Public, No. 416 ", Seventy-third Congress, approved June 19, 1934, for the purpose of regulating interstate and foreign commerce in communication by wire and radio so as to make avail­ able so far as possible, to all people of the United States, a rapid, efficient, Nation-wide, and world-wide wire and radio communication Eervice with adequate facilities at reasonable charges, for the purpose of the national defense, and for the purpose of securing a more effective execution of this policy by centralizing authority heretofore granted by law to several agencies and by granting additional authority with respect to interstate and foreign commerce in wire and radio communication. This act further provided for the transfer to the Communications Commission of all officers and employees of the Federal Radio Com­ mission (except the members thereof whose offices it abolished) whose services were deemed necessary to the efficient operation of the new Commission. It also provided for the transfer of all records and property formerly under the jurisdiction of the Federal Radio Commission and all records under the jurisdiction of the Interstate Commerce Commission and of the Postmaster General relating to the duties, powers, and functions imposed upon and vested in the Com­ mission by the Communications Act.
    [Show full text]
  • Practice and Procedure Before the Federal Radio Commission Louis G
    Journal of Air Law and Commerce Volume 1 | Issue 2 Article 2 1930 Practice and Procedure before the Federal Radio Commission Louis G. Caldwell Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.smu.edu/jalc Recommended Citation Louis G. Caldwell, Practice and Procedure before the Federal Radio Commission, 1 J. Air L. & Com. 144 (1930) https://scholar.smu.edu/jalc/vol1/iss2/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at SMU Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Air Law and Commerce by an authorized administrator of SMU Scholar. For more information, please visit http://digitalrepository.smu.edu. PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE BEFORE THE FEDERAL RADIO COMMISSION Louis G. CALDWELL* I. INTRODUCTORY The powers and duties delegated to the Federal Radio Com- mission by the Radio Act of 1927, as amended," may, for the pur- pose of studying its practice and procedure, be classified under two headings: (1) qiasi-legislative, and (2) quasi-judicial. The use of these terms is not free from just criticism for failing to take into account the great amount of routine work of a purely adminis- trative nature which devolves upon the Commission. The nature of this work and the procedure governing it will, however, be pointed out under the second of the two headings. The term "quasi-legislative" is used in this article to character- ize the functions of the Commission with reference to the making of rules and regulations. In this respect the Commission has powers and duties of greater breadth, and which are more nearly truly legislative in character, than perhaps any other federal commission.
    [Show full text]
  • A Can of Worms
    A CAN OF WORMS Pirate Radio as Public Intransigence on the Public Airwaves by John Nathan Anderson A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts (Journalism and Mass Communication) at the UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON 2004 APPROVED ____________________________ James L. Baughman, Professor and Director ____________________________ Robert E. Drechsel, Professor ____________________________ Douglas M. McLeod, Professor and Advisor Contents Preface i Chapter 1. UNLICENSED BROADCASTING AS RADIO HISTORY 1 Scope of Study 3; Organizational Outline of Chapters 5; Overview of Source Material 8; Notes to Chapter 1 14 Chapter 2. CONTEMPORARY TREATMENT OF UNLICENSED BROADCASTING 16 Real-World Constraints on FCC Enforcement 18; Engagement at the Administrative Level 21; Notes to Chapter 2 30 Chapter 3. EARLY RADIO LICENSING AUTHORITY: A CRISIS OF CONFIDENCE 36 1912-1927: Undermined from the Inside 36; 1927/34 Legislation, “Public interest, convenience, and necessity,” and “Access” to the Airwaves 41; Notes to Chapter 3 46 Chapter 4. LEGAL REFINEMENT OF FCC LICENSING AUTHORITY 50 Bedrocks Established in Case Law, 1943-1969 55; FCC License Authority and Enforcement Effectiveness, 1970-1989 60; Notes to Chapter 4 67 Chapter 5. MICRORADIO: FOCUSED CHALLENGE TO THE LICENSING REGIME 72 Stephen Dunifer and Free Radio Berkeley’s “Can of Worms” 73; Other Notable Microradio Cases 78; Microradio and FCC Field Enforcement 82; Notes to Chapter 5 88 Chapter 6. THE FCC AND LPFM 95 Congressional Meddling Into LPFM
    [Show full text]
  • The Federal Communications Commission: Current Structure and Its Role in the Changing Telecommunications Landscape
    The Federal Communications Commission: Current Structure and Its Role in the Changing Telecommunications Landscape Updated January 27, 2021 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R45699 SUMMARY R45699 The Federal Communications Commission: January 27, 2021 Current Structure and Its Role in the Changing Patricia Moloney Figliola Telecommunications Landscape Specialist in Internet and Telecommunications The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is an independent federal agency established Policy by the Communications Act of 1934 (1934 Act, or “Communications Act”). The agency is charged with regulating interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite, and cable. The mission of the FCC is to make available for all people of the United States, “without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex, a rapid, efficient, Nationwide, and worldwide wire and radio communication service with adequate facilities at reasonable charges.” The FCC operates under a public interest mandate first laid out in the 1927 Radio Act (P.L. 632, 69th Congress), but how this mandate is applied depends on how “the public interest” is interpreted. Some regulators seek to protect and benefit the public at large through regulation, while others seek to achieve the same goals through the promotion of market efficiency. Additionally, Congress granted the FCC wide latitude and flexibility to revise its interpretation of the public interest standard to reflect changing circumstances and the agency has not defined it in more concrete terms. These circumstances, paired with changes in FCC leadership, have led to significant changes over time in how the FCC regulates the broadcast and telecommunications industries. The FCC is directed by five commissioners appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate for five-year terms.
    [Show full text]
  • Business Regulation Regulation of Radio Broadcasting Competitive Enterprise Or Public Utility Stanley M
    Cornell Law Review Volume 27 Article 8 Issue 2 February 1942 Business Regulation Regulation of Radio Broadcasting Competitive Enterprise or Public Utility Stanley M. Brown John Wesley Reed Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Stanley M. Brown and John Wesley Reed, Business Regulation Regulation of Radio Broadcasting Competitive Enterprise or Public Utility, 27 Cornell L. Rev. 249 (1942) Available at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clr/vol27/iss2/8 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Cornell Law Review by an authorized administrator of Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. BUSINESS REGULATION REGULATION OF RADIO BROADCASTING: COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE OR PUBLIC UTILITY? The Federal Communications Commission, on May 2, 1941, issued an order in Docket Number 5060, promulgating eight regulations designed to alleviate certain monopolistic tendencies in radio broadcasting. These regu- lations implemented the Commission's "Report on Chain Broadcasting" (the product of two years' study), which was released two days later. Although these regulations were to have become effective at the end of July, 1941, their operation has been suspended indefinitely while broadcasters, networks, and the Commission engage in one of the bitterest controversies that has yet beset the Commission.
    [Show full text]
  • Radiating Emergency: the Perils and Promise of the Broadcast Signal in the Atomic Age
    Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies ISSN: 1479-1420 (Print) 1479-4233 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rccc20 Radiating Emergency: The Perils and Promise of the Broadcast Signal in the Atomic Age Greg Siegel To cite this article: Greg Siegel (2011) Radiating Emergency: The Perils and Promise of the Broadcast Signal in the Atomic Age, Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies, 8:3, 286-306, DOI: 10.1080/14791420.2011.594069 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/14791420.2011.594069 Published online: 25 Jul 2011. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 134 View related articles Citing articles: 2 View citing articles Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rccc20 Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies Vol. 8, No. 3, September 2011, pp. 286Á306 Radiating Emergency: The Perils and Promise of the Broadcast Signal in the Atomic Age Greg Siegel This essay argues that the development of CONELRAD marked a pivotal*and often overlooked*moment in the history of media and communications in the United States. As the nation’s first coast-to-coast emergency broadcast system, CONELRAD established a new paradigm of networked communications for a new world order. Through close critical examination of the institutional events and discursive controversies surrounding CONELRAD’s development, I show how those events and controversies were inflected by both contemporaneous atomic anxieties and older hopes and fears associated with over- the-air communications. I also suggest how they articulated, in the domain of electronic mass media, the politico-legal theory and practice of the state of exception.
    [Show full text]